Thank you, Chair.
This was a motion put in place because I was concerned about public funding on a program. The gaslighting on it was this motion or that motion. I would like to think that, among colleagues of all political stripes, I have a reputation for being a bit of an independent thinker. It sometimes works and sometimes it gets me into trouble, but nonetheless.
The intent of the motion here, colleagues.... First of all, I want to address one of Mr. Turnbull's points. He suggested that there wasn't an issue with the number of writeoffs in this program. There are. There's an estimate that at least 20% of these programs are in arrears at any point of time. Yes, it is an arm's-length organization, but it is funded by the government and within our scope. If the level of arrears is that high, then we have an obligation, through this committee, to ask why that's happening and if the granting criteria could be improved.
I could alter the motion if you wanted to talk about conflicts of interest and about the man that Mr. Turnbull mentioned. He is the husband of the foreign affairs minister, who received over $25,000 from the NRC, the National Research Council, while his spouse was a sitting cabinet minister. We could do that.
In the spirit of good faith, this program to me looks like it probably needs a tweak in terms of eligibility to ensure that these writeoffs aren't so high. That's what we should be doing here.
With regard to my Bloc colleague's assumption of motive on why we're doing this.... Colleagues, ISED is one of the largest distributors of grants and contributions in the entire government. It's literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Seriously. It is the water font of direct subsidies to large corporations. Its directors general and bureaucracy are at very high risk of being captured both by themselves and also by industry. It is our job to scrutinize the decisions made on expenditures within the department, and whether or not they are providing value added for the Canadian taxpayer.
I understand there's a legislative agenda. However, we have to balance that legislative agenda, colleagues, with the scrutinization of these expenditures. We have to, because the reality is that Canada is in an inflationary crisis. Part of that inflationary crisis is caused by government spending, large amounts of government spending and large amounts of government deficit spending. If we are not scrutinizing whether or not that deficit spending has a net positive benefit to the Canadian economy and ensuring there are safeguards in program spending to get there then.... That has to be part of this committee's mandate. It has to be.
If we're not looking at what ISED bureaucrats are recommending to the minister or the lack of accountability, then who is?
When I was in cabinet and I had large grants and contributions, I was on top of every program design. I looked at every funding model. I reformed a lot of our funding models, when I started, because I couldn't see the safeguards to ensure value for taxpayer money in some of these things. I redesigned the programs. That should be the positive productive input from parliamentarians of all stripes, including the government members.
It's not saying that these programs aren't necessary or that these programs aren't good. It's just asking how these can be designed.... When you have a bureaucracy that perhaps is not willing or doesn't think that it's necessary to give advice to the minister for changes to program funding, or the minister is not doing it the other way, then it's our job to make those recommendations.
For me, a 20% arrears rate is high. If colleagues want to modify this down to one meeting, I'm happy to do that. We should be looking at spending at this committee. We really should be. We should be looking at how much money is going to corporate Canada.
To my colleague from the NDP, if my colleague would like his motion to go first in terms of study, I also have....
Since he talked about it, am I allowed to talk about it, or is that a breach of privilege?